قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / US / Trump can not remove citizenship from the constitution

Trump can not remove citizenship from the constitution



A little girl holds the US flag during a naturalization ceremony in New York on July 3, 2018.
Photo: BRYAN R. SMITH / AFP / Getty Images

With the Pittsburgh tragedy and the assassination of Democratic figures in his rearview mirror, President Trump remains obliged to change the subject and continue his campaign of white resentment and fear – Efforts before the intermediate elections. Monday's distraction was the lavish deployment of 5,200 active troops on the US-Mexico border to face a nearby caravan. The nonsense on Tuesday was the revelation by an exclusive of Axios that he intends to wipe out the constitutional guarantee of baptismal citizenship by executive co-op.

The outlines of the executive order are unknown – and the White House could hover a trial ballon to assess the scale of indignation, process threats and reaction of the press and the public. At the end of the day not even Paul Ryan was on board.

One thing is certain, however: the abolition of birthrate from our charter does not reflect a marginal position within the Trump administration or even the wider Republican Party environment. The President has made clear his feelings about the issue since he was in the campaign campaign, and others in the GOP area – even more moderate voices – soon got their turn. The reality remains: this has been a conservative pipe dream since the 1990s. Mike Pence and Lindsey Graham quickly stepped up to Trump's defense on Tuesday, with the latter promising to support the president by laws on how mainstream their position is.

Despite this story, the credibility of a report that has gotten the ball rolling is still striking. Although the likelihood of a real executive order is still in the air, Axios uncritically noted that litigation over the issue of first-born citizenship "would force courts to pass a constitutional debate on the 14th Amendment." Only that this is really the case no Debate on the meaning of the opening clause of what I believe to be the biggest change – which, as constitutional history would say, turned 150 this year and does so much more than just that To grant citizenship to all who were born within our borders.

The impetus for the reconstruction changes, of which the 14th is one, was that there was a subclass of citizens – namely, enslaved African Americans born on American soil – who were not considered citizens under the original constitution and had no privileges and immunities that white Americans enjoyed. When the Supreme Court ruled Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Judge Roger Taney made it clear that this subhuman subclass had "no rights that the white man had to respect" – a racist and dehumanized language that spoke in this regard remains a nadir in American jurisprudence.

Dred Scott may not have caused the civil war, but he certainly was a linchpin in a bloody campaign for equal civil rights that has torn and rewoven the nation in two, paving the way for a better, more perfect constitution , The authors of the Post-Civil-War amendments after the Civil War may have made major statements in the text of the 14th subamendment about "due process" and "equal protection of the law", which have been widely interpreted by the courts. However, they left no ambiguity when they formulated the citizen clause of the amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to their jurisdiction are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside."

Confronted With this language and with the case of a US-born child of Chinese parents, the Supreme Court ruled in the judgment of 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark that the 14th Amendment is interpreted as meaning that the children of not denying citizens the right of American citizenship "would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scottish, Irish, German or other European descent, who were always considered and treated as citizens of the United States." Children of foreigners who were treated as citizens in the original constitution did not differ from children, to whom the Reformed Constitution gave the same treatment as a birthright.

What the Trump The government has been trying to cheer up since at least last summer the question of the meaning of "under the jurisdiction" stands. Since Wong Kim Ark the sentence has been uncontroversial, but in July Michael was undoubtedly Anton, a former National Security Advisor to the President, doubting its importance on the pages of Washington Post claiming these words made it clear that someone had to legally reside in the United States before the change was possible to grant his children citizenship. Garrett Epps, a lawyer at the University of Maryland, examined the historical evidence (which had puzzled Anton and later persuaded him to add a copy to his paper) exposing this claim and calling it "the constitutional equivalent of flat-earthism." "

And so many others over the years, across the spectrum of political and legal thinking. James Ho, who is one of the most reactionary judges Trump has appointed to the federal courts, has nonetheless pondered the Citizen Clause of the 14th Amendment, which legislators have tried to legislate in the past. Ho estimated sources from the founding years, the Supreme Court's precedent and the text of the constitution itself, and concluded that children of undocumented immigrants were as American as those who settled here from distant shores. "This birthright is no less protected for children of undocumented persons than for the descendants of Mayflower passengers," he wrote.

Fundamental is everything that is subject to "his jurisdiction" means "subject to the laws." of the United States. "The same argument used by the Trump government to pass the law on undocumented immigrants – which no one really doubts, under our draconian immigration legislation – to the children born to them. If immigrants obey the law, as the government demands, they should do so, which implies that the US is responsible for them and their children born here are ipso facto American citizens. If the little caste of the Anti-Birthright desires a different reading, only one constitutional change will suffice. Since 1995 this is also the official position of the Ministry of Justice. Will Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who is both one of Trump's biggest anti-immigrant boosters and a self-confessed antagonist to the lawless executive executive, join this crusade? Vice President Mike Pence said on this point that the Supreme Citizenship at this time states that the Supreme Court has never definitively clarified whether the disputed language of the 14th Amendment applies to those who entered the country illegally. But that misses the forest for the trees: there are a number of constitutional ambiguities that Americans never thought would have to be solved until an anomaly like Trump was chosen. Conversely, we do not need the Supreme Court to tell us that the President can not apologize or take bribes from foreign governments, to name two absurdities that has forced Trump to think about it. We do not have to wait for an unconstitutional blow of the pen to know that it is beyond the pale – constitutionally, morally or otherwise.

The debate on the merits of this deviation is the debate about the merits of dog whistle policy itself. The question arises as to whether there is room for white ethnocentrism in a constitutional regime that was to end it in 1868.


Source link